U.N. Takeover Plot Thickens

A Denver B-Cycle bike sharing station located ...

A Denver B-Cycle bicycle shring station (Image via Wikipedia)

This is another article in the series on conspiracy theories.

Colorado’s recent gubernatorial race was entertaining on many levels, but a particularly hilarious component was the Great United Nations Takeover Bike Plot. This dire conspiracy theory was first outlined to a giggling public by Tea Party candidate Dan Maes in an effort to discredit Democrat John Hickenlooper, the eventual winner of the race and a big supporter of bike paths and bike-sharing in Colorado cities.

Competing strongly with fellow Tea Party candidates Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle for sheer entertainment, Maes told a Tea Party rally that Denver’s new bike-sharing program was a step toward “converting Denver into a United Nations community.” Maes, a first-time political candidate and surprise winner of the Republican primary, warned, “This is bigger than it looks like on the surface, and it could threaten our personal freedoms.”

For those not familiar with the bike-sharing that threatens personal freedoms in Denver, it is a membership program that allows people to register, then pick up, use, and leave bikes at designated areas in the city. How this impacts on personal freedom (and what it has to do with the United Nations) remains somewhat mysterious…but wait till Mr. Maes learns about the latest dire threat now developing in Europe and soon to invade a city near you…electric car sharing!

Vincent Bolloré and his BlueCar

Paris has already threatened the personal freedom of its citizens with a massive bike-sharing program. 20,000 bikes are available at 1,500 stations available around the city and nearby suburbs. Infrequent users can pay by credit card, while subscribers pay a yearly fee of €25 (~$33) to gain access to the bikes. But this electric-car caper takes the sinister U.N. Takeover Plot to a whole new level. The four-seat “Bluecars”—so called for their color—developed by Bolloré and Pininfarina, are to be positioned at 1,200 stations in metropolitan Paris and will be available around the clock starting in fall of 2011. Users must have a valid driver’s license and pay a subscription fee to borrow one of the vehicles.

Tourists will be able to use the service as long as they have a driver’s license recognized in France, meaning U.S. and European visitors should have no problem signing up. The service will employ around 800 people, and will be financed by a €60 million (~$80.2 million) investment by Bolloré. City and regional authorities will pay to build the docking stations at a cost of €50,000 (~$66,800) each. An annual subscription will cost €12 (~$16) per month, but daily and weekly options will also be available. A €250 (~$335) security deposit will also be required. The cars can be reserved in advance and returned to any station, similar to how Paris’ bike-sharing program works. A test phase of the program is scheduled for August and September, just before the official startup in October 2011.

A bike here, a Bluecar there…be afraid! That distant sound you hear is the United Nations, stealthily chipping away at your personal freedoms.


About filistro

Filistro is a Canadian writer and prairie dog who maintains burrows on both sides of the 49th parallel. Like all prairie dogs, she is keenly interested in politics and language. (Prairie dogs have been known to build organized towns the size of Maryland, and are the only furry mammal with a documented language.)
This entry was posted in Conspiracies and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to U.N. Takeover Plot Thickens

  1. shortchain says:

    filistro — the coming takeover of the transit system is proceeding apace, through a socialistic plot spawned, apparently, in many cities simultaneously. Why, right here in the Twin Cities, in the US of A, we have both community vehicles (you pay a fee, and, when you need a car, you just go to the parking garage and get one), and, even more insidious, community bicycles! As someone recently said, such mass transit is nothing but socialism.

    So it’s a world-wide plot, not merely a distant, European oddity.

    And I saw my first low-emission taxi the other day, too. I suspect that it’s only a matter of time before that becomes de rigueur — and not just in France. UPS vehicles here are already low-emission hybrids, as are new buses and courier vehicles. And when was the last time you saw a gasoline-powered go-cart? They’re all electric around here, now.

  2. filistro says:

    Yes, shortchain, I was thinking the same thing. I’ve actually had this article in the queue for a while now, but how fitting that it should appear on the blog at the very same time we learn that mass transit is socialism!

    There’s obviously something in the water out there in Colorado.

    Maybe it’s the fluoride 😉

  3. dcpetterson says:

    I think it’s in the definition of socialism.

    If gubmint does something good for society, then that’s socialism. Gubmint is supposed to increase individual freedoms, not do things for the good of the whole nation. If We the Peoples are forced to do something that benefits someone else, then that’s tyranny. And if my tax money is used to buy a bicycle that someone else can use, then that is just plain theft.

    Why don’t we just go all the way and have underwear sharing? Or house sharing? Or wife sharing? (If you try do to gun sharing, that’s when the right wing gets really mad.)

    See. the real danger here is that Wee the Peopleses will get used to using things that aren’t ours. It’s a first step toward eliminating private property entirely. Next thing, there’ll be toothbrush sharing and needle sharing and even condom sharing. Just you wait.

    Soon, you’ll only get to drive gubmint-approved bicycles and wear gubmint-approved tinfoil hats and drink gubmint-approved whiskey.

    See, ever since Roosevelt did that thing with gubmint-sponsored highways, Wee the Sheeple have come to think gubmint should be helping people, that the nation should share the burden of moving us forward — and moving us around. See, transportation is a Socialistical Plot!! The whole idea that something We use is owned in common rather than owned by an individual person is what makes it Socialisticalism.

    You know there was no demand for an interstate highway system, because no corporation had ever stepped in to build one. Roosevelt committed a gubmint takeover of an industry that didn’t even exist yet. We could have had privately-owned toll roads by now, damn it!

    Corporations are people, too, so it’s okay if you go to Ready Rents to rent something, and that way someone (Ready Rents) makes money. But this bike-sharing and shoe-sharing and hairbrush-sharing is just taking money away from rental places. It’s anti-capitalistical!

    See, that’s how bike-sharing is going to lead to a destruction of private property and a socialistical takeover of the world. You just have to connect the dots on the chalkboard.

  4. filistro says:

    DC… very chilling analysis. We are clearly in danger here. And it’s no coincidence that the electric cars are … BLUE! (cue scary music…)

    But, even as a dedicated, mildly obsessive conspiracy theorist, I still haven’t figured out where the United Nations comes into it. Can somebody connect that final dot for me?

  5. dcpetterson says:

    What’s not to get? The U.N. is the very center of worldwide Socialisticalism. It works like this.

    First, individual nations of the world internally eliminate private property as I outlined above. Then those nations cede their own sovereignty to the trans-national body of the U.N. That way, poor countries where people look different from Us can get Our money to build stuff they use. And We have been duped into allowing it by thinking that it’s okay for Our money to go to the use of someone else.

    Now, if a transnational corporation did that, well, that’s okay, because corporations are people too, and that’s the Capitalist Way. So it’s okay of furriners get rich from products sold here, and if aspects of the gubmint are given over to transnational corporations. But to give assistance to a transnational gubbermental body? That’s Socialistical!

    Once we’re used to someone else using Our stuff — in fact, once We’ve been conditioned to not even think of Our stuff as being Ours — then the U.N. can come in and take that stuff and give it to people who don’t look like Us and who live in other places. It’s all very clear when you think about it.

  6. Bart DePalma says:

    UN takeover plot? Hardly.

    Complete waste of money. Definitely.

  7. shortchain says:

    I’m with Bart. Give a man a bicycle, and he’ll ride for a few hundred yards, crash into the back-end of a bus, and end up in hospital. Teach a man to ride a bicycle, and he’ll work for weeks on your United Fruit plantation so he can save up enough to buy a bike made in China or Korea, thus enriching the Chinese and Koreans.

  8. dcpetterson says:

    Complete waste of money. Definitely.

    Yeah, ’cause no one’s gonna use those bikes.

  9. Bart DePalma says:

    DC:

    Colorado’s state budget is being absorbed by the Borg-like Medicaid program and secondarily by unionized public employee pensions, which are squeezing out higher education, parks, roads and will soon start shrinking K-12.

    In comparison to those needs, bicycle sharing is an utter waste of money.

  10. dcpetterson says:

    Bart:

    I’m glad you put a high importance on Medicaid and public employee pensions. That’s a very enlightened attitude.

    Oh wait, you were trying to scapegoat those people. Typical right wing arrogant deflection.

  11. dcpetterson says:

    By the way, aren’t the subscription fees supposed to cover the costs? Which means that no money is wasted at all, right?

  12. mclever says:

    Just to make everyone’s day (and with no particular relevance to UN takeovers via bicycle sharing):

    Barack Obama most admired man in 2010

  13. Todd Dugdale says:

    This is the default condition of the conservative mind: “I won’t use it, so it’s bad”.

    It doesn’t matter if other people use it, because the individual conservative won’t. And, since the individual conservative is the Great Everyman, they already ‘know’ in advance that if they won’t use it, nobody will.

    And, since we ‘know’ that nobody will use it, there must be some kind of diabolical plot behind it. They cast a jaundiced eye upon the issue and see whatever they want to see. Sharing? That’s socialism! Bicycles? Only kids ride bicycles! Electric cars? I can’t tow my boat with one of those!

    With this cursory evaluation complete, the only reason for such an absurd idea to be proposed is …. a hidden agenda!

  14. mclever says:

    Todd Dugdale has it right, I think.

    The typical person (conservative or not) is often short-sighted. I don’t need a bicycle today, so the government shouldn’t be wasting their money on that foolishness! I’ll never use the bus or train, so that’s a waste, too! I have no kids (or my kids go to private/home school), so why should my tax dollars pay for public education? I don’t need no handouts, so the government should stop wasting my money on all those lazy people! My healthcare coverage is great, so keep the government out!

    Until they need something. They’re trying to get through a congested downtown. They get laid off and want to collect their unemployment insurance. They get disabled and need social security and medicare…

    Then the lament becomes, “This sucks! Why hasn’t the government fixed this yet? What do we pay our taxes for anyway?”

    I’ve seen this disconnect far too many times. I’ve listened to an aunt rant about government waste and handouts to the poor in one breath, and then complain about the size of her disability checks with the next…

  15. Todd Dugdale says:

    Here in MN, we saw this situation decades ago with the Root River Trail.
    The State proposed a bicycle trail, and Republicans howled. It was in a deeply conservative part of the State, too, so local communities opposed it passionately.

    “It’s a waste of money. Nobody rides bicycles. Why would someone go down to SE MN to ride a bicycle when they can do that at home? The State shouldn’t be involved in something like this.”

    As it turned out, it was a brilliant success. It brought millions to the area, and other communities started to demand bike trails. We went from “It’s a waste of money” to “Where the hell is our trail?” pretty quickly. In fact, the problem is that it needs to be re-paved, but Pawlenty has made that impossible.

    Even more interesting is that the local conservative governments established a special “lodging tax” to maximise the profit. Taxes are cool to conservatives if someone else pays them, especially when it is those decadent city dwellers doing the paying.

    In the urban core, bicycles are a matter of practicality. But they can really be successful in the rural areas, too. If the State had listened to the conservative knee-jerk naysayers, this success story would never have happened.

  16. dcpetterson says:

    @Todd Dugdale
    If the State had listened to the conservative knee-jerk naysayers, this success story would never have happened.

    That’s pretty much a universal phenomenon, isn’t it? Listening to conservatives is almost never a good idea.

  17. shiloh says:

    Please, I beseech thee ~ don’t rehash the Colorado teabag campaigns of Maes/Buck as it reinforces the excruciating pain Bartles is currently going thru and Obama Care may not be enough to bring him back from the brink!

    This applies to o’donnell/angle et al teabaggers as well ~ use discretion er show some empathy people!

    I’m not a witch ~ I’m you!

  18. Jean says:

    The right wing is also ginning up this new conspiracy theory:

    The good news is that the right-wing isn’t talking about President Obama being a secret Muslim right now. The bad news is that they’re now concerned that he’s going to use his honorary status as a Crow Tribe Indian to return the United States to Native Americans.

    Of course it all makes so much sense to the wingers because Obama was adopted as an honorary member of the Crow tribe during the 2008 campaign, and was even given the name “One who helps people throughout the land.”

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/latest_right-wing_freak-out_obama_wants_to_give_ma.php?ref=fpblg

  19. filistro says:

    Jean… this seems to be the day for winger conspiracy freakouts. (Maybe they schedule them on Tuesdays, the same way we schedule our conspiracy theories). The one I’m seeing everywhere today is the quote from Michelle Obama, speaking on nutrition and childhood obesity, in which she says “We can’t just leave it up to the parents.”

    Which has led, of course, to many thousands of outraged howls all over the Web about “big gubmint nanny state!” and “now Obama wants to take over our parenting!” and “get your ugly big nose out of my kid’s lunchbox, you fat-ass black bitch!” (That last coming from one of my pet Freepers.)

    At whitehouse.gov you can see the full transcript of the First Lady’s words: (emphasis mine)

    ” And everywhere I go, fortunately, I meet parents who are working very hard to make sure that their kids are healthy. They’re doing things like cutting down on desserts and trying to increase fruits and vegetables. They’re trying to teach their kids the kind of healthy habits that will stay with them for a lifetime.

    But when our kids spend so much of their time each day in school, and when many children get up to half their daily calories from school meals, it’s clear that we as a nation have a responsibility to meet as well. We can’t just leave it up to the parents. I think that parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home won’t be undone each day in the school cafeteria or in the vending machine in the hallway. I think that our parents have a right to expect that their kids will be served fresh, healthy food that meets high nutritional standards.

    And particularly in these tough economic times, when so many families are struggling, when school meals sometimes are the main source of nourishment for so many kids, we have an obligation to make sure that those meals are as nutritious as possible.”

    These wingnuts aren’t just shameless and dishonest. They’re DESPICABLE.

  20. dcpetterson says:

    These wingnuts aren’t just shameless and dishonest. They’re DESPICABLE.

    You’re just realizing that now?

  21. filistro says:

    DC… I’m a hopeless, indefatigable believer in the essential goodness of my fellow man. The awfulness of these people always seems to surprise me all over again.

    You’d think I’d learn 😦

  22. Jean says:

    fili,

    Instead of these wacky conspiracy theories that the wingers keep coming up with, something way more interesting, once the emails are released, will be:

    http://www.frumforum.com/release-of-palin-work-emails-delayed

    I wonder what she’s trying to hide?

  23. shiloh says:

    Obama will also be shipping the (34) million American Irish back to the Republic of Ireland, pop. (4) million.

    It could happen!

    May you live as long as you want,
    And never want as long as you live.

    Erin Go Bragh !!!

  24. filistro says:

    @Jean… I wonder what she’s trying to hide?

    I have a friend who thinks he knows. We’ll see if he’s right 😉

  25. These wingnuts aren’t just shameless and dishonest. They’re DESPICABLE.

    It’s probably because they say things like “I know what’s best for you rabble.”

  26. Bart DePalma says:

    filistro says:

    The one I’m seeing everywhere today is the quote from Michelle Obama, speaking on nutrition and childhood obesity, in which she says “We can’t just leave it up to the parents.” Which has led, of course, to many thousands of outraged howls all over the Web about “big gubmint nanny state!” and “now Obama wants to take over our parenting!”

    At whitehouse.gov you can see the full transcript of the First Lady’s words: “But when our kids spend so much of their time each day in school, and when many children get up to half their daily calories from school meals, it’s clear that we as a nation have a responsibility to meet as well. We can’t just leave it up to the parents. I think that parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home won’t be undone each day in the school cafeteria or in the vending machine in the hallway. I think that our parents have a right to expect that their kids will be served fresh, healthy food that meets high nutritional standards.”

    And you somehow don’t see this statement as shoving parents and local school boards aside?

    Let’s drop race and simply say: “Nosey bitch, this ain’t none of your business. No one elected you to make these decisions. No one elected Congress to make these decisions. Butt the hell out.”

  27. Bart DePalma says:

    Todd Dugdale says: This is the default condition of the conservative mind: “I won’t use it, so it’s bad”. It doesn’t matter if other people use it, because the individual conservative won’t. And, since the individual conservative is the Great Everyman, they already ‘know’ in advance that if they won’t use it, nobody will.

    Let me reacquaint you progressives with the way democracy is supposed to work. Legislators ask their constituents whether they want a particular government capital construction or service and their constituents respond based on whether they will use the infrastructure or service. If the demand is not there, the money should not be spent.

    We conservatives believe that our representatives hold our tax money in trust to address actual problems or return our earnings to us. The public treasury is not your private piggy bank to pay for stuff you personally think is neat.

  28. Jean says:

    Fili,

    re: The one I’m seeing everywhere today is the quote from Michelle Obama, speaking on nutrition and childhood obesity, in which she says “We can’t just leave it up to the parents.”

    Even the Wall Street Journal smacked Saint Sarah down on this. To quote from a Wall Street Journal editorial printed in the Minneapolis Star Tribune today:

    The First Lady has emphasized more nutritious school lunches but mostly encourages parents to make sure their kids eat healthy and exercise. Palin sees a big government plot. “What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own fmalities in what we should eat.” Palin recently said on a talk-radio show, “Just leave us alone, get off our back and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions.”

    On her reality TV show, Palin served her family chocolate and marshamallow s’mores and said “This is in honor of Michelle Obama, who said the other day we should not have dessert.” She also turned a visit to a Pennsylvania high school into a political seminar, handing out cookies to students. No one hates the nanny state more than we do, but Obama isn’t exactly ordering up Lenin’s Young Pioneers. Adults do have an obligation to teach children how to live, and that includes adults who are role models by dint of their national prominence.

    “Health care reform on an individual basis is often just this simple: We could save a lot of money and a lot of grief by making smarter choices,” Obama said recently. “It starts by ending destructive habits and beginning healthy habits in eating and exercise.”

    Sorry, our mistake – that was actually Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, in her 2009 State of the State address.

    Wow. Sarah Palin smacked down by the Wall Street Journal. It doesn’t get much better than that.

  29. dcpetterson says:

    Bart:
    Legislators ask their constituents whether they want a particular government capital construction or service

    Show me where it says that in the Constitution.

    Let me reacquaint you conservatives with the way democracy is supposed to work. The citizenry elects representatives who take an Oath to support the Constitution. Representatives are expected to vote their conscience, and to do what they believe is in the best interests of the nation. If a majority of their constituents approve of the way they vote, then those representatives are often reelected. if not, then not.

    No where in the Constitution does it say that Representatives are supposed to poll their constituents and to mindlessly vote the way the majority wishes.

    I don’t know where you got your ideas of “democracy,” but it surely wasn’t anywhere in our founding documents.

  30. dcpetterson says:

    Bart:
    And you somehow don’t see this statement as shoving parents and local school boards aside?

    Of course not. Only a total idiot would think it meant that.

  31. shiloh says:

    Barted ~ We conservatives believe that our representatives hold our tax money in trust

    Then Reagan ~ Bush41/43 must have been quite a (((disappointment))) er devastating blow to your nonsensical/laughable, daily winger meme, eh.

    Bart, your soooo full of shit, you must walk on the ceiling 24/7 …

    take care, blessings

  32. shiloh says:

    apologies to total idiots …

  33. Bart DePalma says:

    Jean says: Even the Wall Street Journal smacked Saint Sarah down on this. To quote from a Wall Street Journal editorial printed in the Minneapolis Star Tribune today:

    The First Lady has emphasized more nutritious school lunches but mostly encourages parents to make sure their kids eat healthy and exercise. Palin sees a big government plot. “What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own fmalities in what we should eat.” Palin recently said on a talk-radio show, “Just leave us alone, get off our back and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions.”

    On her reality TV show, Palin served her family chocolate and marshamallow s’mores and said “This is in honor of Michelle Obama, who said the other day we should not have dessert.” She also turned a visit to a Pennsylvania high school into a political seminar, handing out cookies to students. No one hates the nanny state more than we do, but Obama isn’t exactly ordering up Lenin’s Young Pioneers. Adults do have an obligation to teach children how to live, and that includes adults who are role models by dint of their national prominence.

    Notes to WSJ:

    1) The adults who have the obligation to teach children how to live are primarily their parents and secondarily schools under local control of parents – not the federal government.

    2) Furthermore, Mrs. Obama is not acting as a “role model” when she uses the federal government to command that schools shall serve what she deems is proper. A role model leads by example. Obama is dictating through force of law.

  34. Bart DePalma says:

    dcpetterson says: Let me reacquaint you conservatives with the way democracy is supposed to work. The citizenry elects representatives who take an Oath to support the Constitution. Representatives are expected to vote their conscience, and to do what they believe is in the best interests of the nation. If a majority of their constituents approve of the way they vote, then those representatives are often reelected. if not, then not.

    This is an excellent summary of progressive authoritarianism or rule by our expert betters – not democracy.

  35. Jean says:

    Bart,

    re: Mrs. Obama is not acting as a “role model” when she uses the federal government to command that schools shall serve what she deems is proper.

    When did Mrs. Obama issue this command? Sources, please.

  36. dcpetterson says:

    It bears repeating — the authors of the Constitution envisioned elected representatives as having the time and opportunity to consider the questions put before them — much more so than did the electorate, who would be (rightly) mostly concerned with day-to-day living.

    In the eighteenth century — and even in the nineteenth and for most of the twentieth — the technology did not exist for elected representatives to poll their constituencies on every question, so they could merely vote the way a majority wanted them to. In fact, this kind of rule by majority would have been anathema to our Founding Fathers, who often warned against this kind of “tyranny of the majority.”

    In no democracy on Earth are elected representatives supposed to poll their constituencies to learn how they should vote. The whole point of having elected representatives is to have them use their own judgment. The whole point of a campaign is to give the voters a chance to learn something about the way a candidate is likely to vote — that is, how does this candidate feel about the issues? What principles does this person use in trying to determine what is in the best interests of the Nation as a whole?

    Bart’s fantasy — that elected representatives should be driven by nothing other than popularity polls in deciding how to vote on issues in Congress — is absurd on its face, and is not only unworkable, but unAmerican. The entire purpose of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights is to insure that even minorities have a voice. The purpose of a representative democracy is to allow elected representatives the luxury of studying issues in more depth than the rest of us can — and to vote in something more than the narrow, selfish interests of a Bart.

    An elected representative is supposed to take into account the needs of the whole nation, and that includes the minority opinions within his or her home district. Bart’s view of “democracy” is nothing more than a modern right-wing talking point, and has no contact with the real world.

  37. dcpetterson says:

    Bart — yes, I want my elected officials to be better than I am. I want them to be smarter, and more fair, more just, and wiser. In any town hall meeting, I want the elected official to be the smartest person in the room. And if he or she is not, then next time, I’m voting for someone else.

    I don’t want an idiotocracy. I don’t want rule by mediocrity. I don’t want rule by high-school popularity contests and advertising gimmicks. I get that you do want these things. Conservatives hate education, hate critical thinking, hate people who are smart — because these thing make people less easily manipulated, less easily ruled by arrogant robber-barons, less likely to be taken in by the FOX “News” fascism and fear.

    An educated and thinking populace is not fearful, and will not buy into your soundbites.

  38. Bart DePalma says:

    dcpetterson says: In the eighteenth century — and even in the nineteenth and for most of the twentieth — the technology did not exist for elected representatives to poll their constituencies on every question, so they could merely vote the way a majority wanted them to.

    You did not poll your constituents then. You spent most of the year living among them. Congress was not originally intended to be a full time job.

    In fact, this kind of rule by majority would have been anathema to our Founding Fathers, who often warned against this kind of “tyranny of the majority.”

    The Founders properly believed that democracy would inevitably lead to a tyranny of the majority. This is why they set up a system of constitutional limited powers, checks and balances on our democracy followed by a Bill of Rights to draw a line of personal liberties past which government may not tread. The term tyranny of the majority has NOTHING to do with your authoritarian concept of elected officials declining to represent their constituents.

    An elected representative is supposed to take into account the needs of the whole nation, and that includes the minority opinions within his or her home district. Bart’s view of “democracy” is nothing more than a modern right-wing talking point, and has no contact with the real world.

    No. The Founders expressly tiered representation in our federal government. The House was supposed to be the most democratic and closest to the People. The Senate was supposed to represent the interests of their individual states. This is why state legislatures originally appointed Senators. Finally, the nation as a whole is represented by the President. This way all levels of interests were represented and could serve as checks on the others.

    :::sigh:::

    I wish you were alone in your ignorance, but the government schools simply do not teach the Constitution any longer.

  39. shiloh says:

    Barted ~ :::sigh:::

    One may have noticed America has changed a tad since the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789 ie (((27 Amendments)))

    Sorry Bart as females, African/Americans and other minorities are now allowed to vote, GASP! and someone like yourself, who lives in the past 24/7 er in your own conservative, self-centered bubble may be left behind as the U.S. Constitution has evolved over the past 221 years!

    Indeed, pretty soon America may elect an African/American, bi-racial Muslim born in Kenya the 44th President of the United States of America! if you’re not paying attention Bartles so be afraid, be very afraid!

    Let me guess your fav animal ~ the dinosaur …

    take care

  40. shortchain says:

    Good lord, Bart, you really come across as stupid. Anyone: when was the last time (or any time) your elected representative asked you how he should spend the tax monies?

    I’ve been around a lot longer than you, Bart, and I’ve never seen or heard this happening — with the notable exception of the very wealthy, who have the ear of their congressional representatives, since the representatives have to be close enough to reach into their pockets…

  41. dcpetterson says:

    Barted:
    The term tyranny of the majority has NOTHING to do with your authoritarian concept of elected officials declining to represent their constituents.

    You are welcome to explain how a representative democracy with free and open elections can be termed either a “tyranny” or “authoritarian.” Particularly when the rights of the minority are Constitutionally protected. Your grasp of both history and of the meaning of words seems to be lacking. So is your grasp of concepts such as “democracy.”

    “Tyranny” does not mean “decisions Bart disagrees with.”

    Just because you choose to use impolite words in public does not mean those words actually apply to anything.

  42. shiloh says:

    Bartles, what would the founding fathers have thought about the 2000 election ie will of the people. You remember 2000 when Gore got more votes than cheney/bush and the U.S. Supreme Court appointed c/b president!

    Indeed as you weren’t Waaaahhhh! :::sniffle::: Waaaahhhh!’ing back then 😉 No, only since Obama was freely elected w/(((69.5 million))) votes have you been Waaaahhhh! :::sniffle::: Waaaahhhh!’ing er crying/whining 24/7 like an incoherent teabagger …

    ‘nuf said!

  43. Todd Dugdale says:

    BDP wrote:
    The public treasury is not your private piggy bank to pay for stuff you personally think is neat.

    You really completely missed my point.
    I said, “It doesn’t matter if other people use it, because the individual conservative won’t. And, since the individual conservative is the Great Everyman, they already ‘know’ in advance that if they won’t use it, nobody will.”

    I’m not sure how you arrive at your statement from that, so I’ll offer an analogy:

    Suppose I am a conservative and I own a Hummer. The city puts in a new municipal parking lot, and all of the spaces available are for compact cars (to maximise the number of cars that can be parked). The Hummer is not a compact car, so I can’t use the lot. Since I believe that my situation is identical to the vast majority (i.e. The Great Everyman), I dismiss this new parking lot as a waste of money and declare that nobody will use it.

    I base this on the fact that I will not use it. As I wrote, I ‘know’ in advance that if I won’t use it, no one will.

    I don’t do research to determine how many people drive compact cars, or go down to other parking lots and count the number of compacts there. I merely extrapolate from my own situation.

    That is what I was saying.

    You have no empirical facts to support your dismissal of the bicycle-sharing system. All you know is that you, personally, will not use it. This makes it, in your mind, a waste of money. Because you are, after all, “everyone”.

  44. Todd Dugdale says:

    dcpetterson wrote:
    I don’t want an idiotocracy. I don’t want rule by mediocrity. I don’t want rule by high-school popularity contests and advertising gimmicks. I get that you do want these things.

    Well put, I must say.

  45. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    OK. I just can’t let this one slip by!

    #1 – Bart, the Constitution DOES NOT set up a “democracy”, you flippin’ idiot, but a REPUBLIC! ( Bart – “This is an excellent summary of progressive authoritarianism or rule by our expert betters – not democracy.

    But even YOU, in the depths of your idiocy, recognized your screw up and a couple of posts later, you contradict yourself: “The Founders properly believed that democracy would inevitably lead to a tyranny of the majority.

    Sad to see someone with such potential succumb to ideological lunacy to the extent that you can no longer even be coherent!

    (Back to ignoring Bart until he at least acts as an adult)

    Could someone PLEASE find a conservative contributor who can make reasonable arguments. It has become simply tiring to read Bart’s pro forma comments. No logic, no reason, no proof, no sense.

  46. dcpetterson says:

    Bart:
    I wish you were alone in your ignorance, but the government schools simply do not teach the Constitution any longer.

    This is because conservatives got rid of this part of our public school curriculum. Conservatives do not want the public to be aware of the actual Constitution. They prefer the strange and pro-corporate ideas of modern authoritarian neoconservatives to be rammed down our throats through flashy advertising and abandonment of logic. The result is that we have inane ideas such as the ones you’re advancing.

    By the way, Bart, you’re wrong about the purpose of the Bill of Rights. These amendments were not enacted to limit the role of government. That was the purpose of the Constitution itself. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the rights of the minorities.

    Example: the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Popular speech, or speech the majority approves of, does not need protection, because the majority would clearly not be tempted to limit that. The same is true of freedom of religion, or the right to assemble — groups that represent the ideas of the majority do not need constitutional protection.

    The whole idea of a representative democracy — as contrasted with a “pure” democracy, in which all questions are put before the entire citizenship — is that elected representatives are supposed to use their own judgment. The citizenry is then free to approve or object to those decisions in the following election.

    I suggest you take remedial citizenship and civics classes. The basic concepts seem to elude you.

  47. Todd Dugdale says:

    It seems as if BDP flips a coin once a day: Heads, Obama is a ruthless tyrant. Tails, Obama is a powerless incompetent.

    One day, Obama is Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao all rolled into one iron-fisted nightmare. The very next day, his Presidency is over and everyone is walking all over poor Obama, who is powerless to do anything at all.

    It’s borderline schizoid.

  48. dcpetterson says:

    It’s particularly funny to hear Bart talking about “authoritarianism” and “tyranny” and “rule by our expert betters,” when he was the one who wrote, “I know what’s best for you rabble.”

  49. drfunguy says:

    Barted:”Legislators ask their constituents whether they want a particular government capital construction or service and their constituents respond based on whether they will use the infrastructure or service.”
    Please evidence when you were asked whether or not you wanted the interstate highway system, was it I-70 they asked you about? I-40? or both?; how about the State Highway that goes from Grand Junction to Fruita? How about any other “government capital construction or service “?

  50. dcpetterson says:

    @drfunguy

    I don’t remember being polled about whether I wanted to invade Iraq. Or if I wanted to build B1 bombers. Or, for that matter, whether black people should have equal rights.

    We are polled only during election campaigns. That is the only poll that matters. And the Barts of the world did their damnedest to undo and deny the results of the 2008 elections.

  51. filistro says:

    @DC… We are polled only during election campaigns. That is the only poll that matters.

    Alaskan citizens were polled in early November. They were asked “Who do you want to represent you in the US Senate?”

    They expressed their will overwhelmingly. What’s more, they wrote their choice by hand, painstakingly, on paper ballots, by the tens of thousands.

    The Tea Party candidate not only ignored their expressed will, he spent weeks in court trying to have their clearly expressed will ignored and discounted. And he was fully supported in this quest by the representatives and members of the Tea Party Express.

    So much for the “will of the voters.”

  52. dcpetterson says:

    So much for the “will of the voters.”

    This is why I say the GOteaParty is just using this “will of the voters” meme as an advertising gimmick. It’s a bit of false nonsense. They don’t care about “the voters.” Oh sure, they hire Rasmussen to create fantasy polls for them. But all the issue polling, not to mention the actual results of 2008 — and further examples such as Alaska — show the “will of the voters” noise to be nothing more than a meaningless slogan.

  53. shiloh says:

    Re Alaska:

    Alaska Icy On Sarah Palin: Poll

    mama grizzly has a dismal (((33 percent))) favorability rating in her home state. That’s a 12-point drop from last winter, a similar poll finds.

    You bet’cha!

    hmm, who’s gonna be a genius ?!? Nate or me 😉 It all depends on how much humiliation palin can take lol ie her political humiliation threshhold. In that respect Bart and mama grizzly are polar 😀 opposites as Bartles enjoys being humiliated 24/7 at 538.

    Indeed, the only runnin’ she’s gonna do is to the bank, imo ~ whereas Bart runs er escapes from thread to thread …

  54. Realist says:

    Could someone PLEASE find a conservative contributor who can make reasonable arguments.

    Sadly, Jeff is on the sidelines with an injury. Perhaps Armchair Warlord will return soon?

  55. Bart DePalma says:

    shortchain says: Good lord, Bart, you really come across as stupid. Anyone: when was the last time (or any time) your elected representative asked you how he should spend the tax monies?

    Governor: Hick actually made his first trip to GOP heavy Colorado Springs to talk with folks about how they want to handle business laws.

    Senate: None. Then again, they are both Dems.

    House: The month before the lame duck. Lamborn is great about holding meetings with constituents. Why, did your Dem blow you off?

    Town: Every single council meeting and any time you can button hole him or her for a chat at the local diner.

  56. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    Sorry, but talking to constituents about “how they want to handle business laws.” — isn’t asking them how to spend tax money. FAIL.

    “Lamborn is great about holding meetings with constituents.” — and at these meetings, did he actually, you know, ask the constituents how he should spend the tax money? I’m betting not, unless you can provide a citation or some other evidence to the contrary. FAIL.

    “Every single council meeting and any time you can button hole him or her for a chat at the local diner.” — And when was the last time he asked you about how to spend tax money? FAIL.

    I asked a specific question. You failed utterly to give a specific answer, but instead attempted to move the goalposts or wave your hands in a general attempt to pretend to answer some other question. Pathetic.

    But I’m convinced. I’m convinced you could not answer the question honestly, so you dissembled.

  57. filistro says:

    I’m never taking Bart seriously again until he addresses to my satisfaction the issue raised by mclever.

    If every abortion should be treated as a homicide (as Bart has stated)… then shouldn’t every miscarriage be investigated as a possible homicide?

    There are 4.4 million pregnancies annually in the United states. Approximately 30% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. “Small-government, libertarian” Bart wants 1.3 million new homicide investigations.

    Why should ANYBODY take him seriously on anything?

  58. Bart DePalma says:

    shortchain says: Sorry, but talking to constituents about “how they want to handle business laws.” — isn’t asking them how to spend tax money. FAIL.

    Dude, there are other laws apart from budget items.

    “Lamborn is great about holding meetings with constituents.” — and at these meetings, did he actually, you know, ask the constituents how he should spend the tax money? I’m betting not, unless you can provide a citation or some other evidence to the contrary. FAIL.

    Lamborn, like most GOP are talking about what spending to cut and what to keep. Taxes were obviously high on the agenda as well.

    “Every single council meeting and any time you can button hole him or her for a chat at the local diner.” — And when was the last time he asked you about how to spend tax money? FAIL.

    There is an ongoing debate concerning whether to spend money on a main street development project.

    I asked a specific question. You failed utterly to give a specific answer, but instead attempted to move the goalposts or wave your hands in a general attempt to pretend to answer some other question. Pathetic.

    I answered your question. You are playing games to avoid the answer. Sounds to me like your Dem representatives DO blow you off and you are pissed to find that this is not SOP for everyone.

  59. Bart DePalma says:

    Fili:

    Your ignorance of the law is becoming irritating. Answer your own damn question. Why wouldn’t a miscarriage be considered to be homicide even if we recognized that we are all human beings from conception?

    Aw hell, you have no idea and I do not have the time to waste.

    Homicide requires an act by the defendant to kill the victim. Miscarriages are almost never the result of an act by the mother. In case of induced miscarriage/abortion, the government can rely upon the treating physician to report the crime as is already the case in other child abuse and death cases.

    Furthermore, the police do not investigate unsuspicious natural deaths as homicides and they are unlikely to start if unborn children are allowed to join the human race.

    No matter what parade of horribles you manufacture, treating unborn children as the human beings they are is not going to result in a police state.

  60. drfunguy says:

    Barted “Miscarriages are almost never the result of an act by the mother.”
    Bullshit.
    Most miscarriages are of unknown causes which may or may not be due to an act of the mother. Smokers have increased rates of miscarriage and spontaneous abortions. Why should fetuses of smokers not be afforded the same protections you are advocating for others?
    As for your impatience with Fili’s supposed ignorance of law, you are hilarious as most every post documents your ignorance of a wide range of subjects.

  61. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    How can you claim to have answered my question, when, in your own words, you admit that you didn’t? As in “there are other laws apart from budget items.”

    What was asked specifically was about spending tax money. I didn’t ask about anything else, because the discussion was specifically about spending money.

    You are simply a joke. And a dishonest one, to boot.

  62. filistro says:

    @Bart.. treating unborn children as the human beings they are is not going to result in a police state.

    Do stop making an even bigger fool of yourself. You are an embarrassment.

    If you are going to treat unborn children as “human beings”, then OF COURSE you will create a police state. Every single death of a fetus will have to be investigated. If you find a dead child on somebody’s bathroom floor, you don’t casually say, “Oh, it was probably natural causes. Dead kids are hardly ever the result of an act by the mother.

    If it’s a fetus on the bathroom floor, and every fetus is to be treated as a human being, then every aborted fetus has to be taken as seriosuly as every dead child.

    One or the other, Bart. Either the fetus cannot have the same rights and protections as the viable human child… or every abortion is homicide and every miscarriage is a possible homicide.

    So which is it?

  63. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: “Miscarriages are almost never the result of an act by the mother.”

    drfunguy says: Most miscarriages are of unknown causes which may or may not be due to an act of the mother. Smokers have increased rates of miscarriage and spontaneous abortions. Why should fetuses of smokers not be afforded the same protections you are advocating for others?

    Hero, an act of homicide does not include infinitesimal increases in the risk to the health of a child. One does not prosecute a parent for homicide based upon second hand smoke which may or may not have caused ill health in their child. This nonsense falls under the same category.

  64. drfunguy says:

    Let the record show that Bart considers a doubling of the chances of spotaneous abortion (cited previsously) to be “infintesimal”. Twenty five percent of miscarriages (in the study cited) could be attributed to cocaine or tobacco use.

  65. shiloh says:

    Bartles becomes very aggravated/sarcastic when he gets backed into a corner and has no answers ~ much like his favorite grifter, charlatan laughingstock mama grizzly …

    Again, when one is in a hole, stop diggin’

  66. dcpetterson says:

    Bart:

    No parent is ever prosecuted for child endangerment? Even when the individual “infinitesimal increases in the risk” lead directly to the death of the child?

    You’re simply not making any sense at all. Which isn’t surprising, because there is no way for your position to be practical, without leading to the most horrendous nanny/police state imaginable.

    Either a fetus is not entitled to the rights of a human being, or we must investigate suspicious deaths and prosecute accordingly. Pick A or B and stop waffling.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s